<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">
Hi Laurent
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Thanks for the feedback. I agree we need to have a coherent process we all follow.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">What about a suggestion that we adopt the GitFlow workflow:</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""> <a href="https://www.atlassian.com/git/tutorials/comparing-workflows/gitflow-workflow" class="">https://www.atlassian.com/git/tutorials/comparing-workflows/gitflow-workflow</a></div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Many organizations as I understand it do use this model. And it’s already documented, a nice bonus. </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Cheers</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Bruce</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Nov 13, 2019, at 4:58 AM, Laurent Michel <<a href="mailto:laurent.michel@astro.unistra.fr" class="">laurent.michel@astro.unistra.fr</a>> wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<div class="">Dear VO,<br class="">
<br class="">
I'm starting to use the new GitHub framework for the VO standard elaboration.<br class="">
My current experience concerns DataLink 1.1 which is still in design phase (before WD)<br class="">
This project is quite active these days with ~5 contributors which provides an interesting experiment of our Github standard process.<br class="">
<br class="">
I would just give one personal feedback on the follow-up of the discussions we are having on Github.<br class="">
<br class="">
Let's take an example of how things should work:<br class="">
- The author A1 proposes to add the feature F to the proposal.<br class="">
- A1 opens the issue proposing F.<br class="">
- Another author A2 does not agree with adding F to the proposal<br class="">
- The discussion continues on the ISSUES panel until a compromise is reached.<br class="">
- Finally, A1 and A2 agree on adding F' in the text<br class="">
- A PR process can be triggered to push F'. The PR discussions are now just related to the wording of F', but no longer its relevance.<br class="">
<br class="">
In the Datalink case, one PR has been open for some reason a little bit too early, therefore the discussion open on the ISSUE continued on the PR thread. This has 2 bad consequences:<br class="">
- Followers have now to check two places (ISSUES and PR)<br class="">
- The discussion on the PR concerns the relevance of the PR itself.<br class="">
<br class="">
This example shows the necessity of clearly separate both steps (ISSUE and PR):<br class="">
- The ISSUE tool has to be used to discuss on *what* has to be add/remove/modify on the standard<br class="">
- The PR panel has to be used to discuss *how* to do it (e.g. wording).<br class="">
- The PR must not be open before an agreement has been found on the ISSUE.<br class="">
<br class="">
This does not relate to some Github setup but to a few good usage rules that should be promoted somehow.<br class="">
May some people with a better Git experience than mine share their feeling about this?<br class="">
<br class="">
-- <br class="">
jesuischarlie/Tunis/Paris/Bruxelles/Berlin<br class="">
<br class="">
Laurent Michel<br class="">
SSC XMM-Newton<br class="">
Tél : +33 (0)3 68 85 24 37<br class="">
Fax : +33 (0)3 )3 68 85 24 32<br class="">
Université de Strasbourg <<a href="http://www.unistra.fr" class="">http://www.unistra.fr</a>><br class="">
Observatoire Astronomique<br class="">
11 Rue de l'Université<br class="">
F - 67200 Strasbourg<br class="">
<br class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</div>
</body>
</html>